Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0240.006 2002-2004 WEST HAWAII C E STOPPERS, INC. Post Office Box 2811 '03 JUL 15 Rf~ 8 Q5 Telephone (808) 322-9969 CCU;, r iJ Fax: (808) 322-2322 FOUNDED 1981 ~'.OUNT1, . I-_ ~ . .f Tips Line: (808) 329-8181 H~1W, \II July 12, 2003 TO: All recipients of the analysis of the Hawaii County Police Report FLEET VERSUS SUBSIDIZED POLICE VEHICLES FROM: West Hawaii Crime Stoppers, Inc. Aloha! We are enclosing our analysis of the HCPD Report covering Fleet Versus Subsidized Police Vehicles, presented at the Hawaii County Council, Finance Committee Meeting held on Tuesday, June 17, 2003. To avoid excess time and unnecessary study we have attempted to keep our comments brief and to the point. We hope those receiving will take the necessary time to study completely and we have attempted to cover every aspect without the need to constantly refer to the HCPD report although we recommend the reader has this available to cross check as may be required. Thank you for your interest and we trust that if you have any questions you will not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, WEST HAWAII CRIME STOPPERS, INC. Alan J. Pratt., Ph.D. MBA President for Board of Directors Comm. No. ~O' Ref. To- Ref. Dote 11 II,~ 5 9~_ A MEMBER OF CRIME STOPPERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ~ ~ WEST HAWAII CRIME STOPPERS, INC. Post Office Box 2811 ~ Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 Telephone (808) 322-9969 Fax: (808) 322-2322 FOUNDED 1981 July 11, 2003 Tips Line: (808) 329-8181 ANALYSIS OF HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT FLEET VERSUS SUBSIDIZED VEHICLE REPORT This analysis has been prepared to examine the report submitted by the Hawaii County Police Department, to the Hawau County Council, Finance Committee, on June 17, 2003, to justify the claims made by HCPD, in their opposition to considering a fleet of marked police cars. We find the report does not provide an accurate or valid argument in support of the subsidized police vehicle program, and many factors have been exaggerated with misleading statements made to jusfify the retention of the present system. PAGE ONE (a). Vehicle Specifications: The equipment such as light bar-partition cage-safety back-seat are all reusable and should be amortized over a two car life at least. (b) The five year cost as shown by the HCPD are not relevant. They are based on the present allowance now in effect remaining constant for the next five years. PAGE TWO (a) The report notes that many parts need to be flown in and depending on the repair no time element can be obtained only estimates. Surely this also applies to subsidized vehicles as well and therefore cannot be a major factor in any decision. (b) Whatever the need is, for backup vehicles, and if there is a need this would be the same also for subsidized vehicles unless the officers rent a vehicle when theirs is down for an extended period. PAGE THREE (a) The figures of $ 200 to $ 500 quoted for the resale price of vehicles purchased has been checked with many sources. The answer by most is quite frankly not printable and the general opinion was that if used police vehicles are being sold at this price, something is wrong. The sales figure was quoted by Honolulu P.D. (b) The costs for emergency equipment shown may or may not be accurate. What is accurate and misleading is the amortization of costs over flue years. With the exception of changes to the vehicle's finish, (painting-striping-decals) the equipment should be amortized over the life of two or three vehicles. A MEMBER OF CRIME STOPPERS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ANALYSIS OF HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMFN~' FLEET VERSUS SUBSIDIZED VEHICLES REPORT-PAGE TWO (c) We believe the chart at the bottom of this page is inaccurate since it does not take into account a probable increase in allowances for Subsidized Vehicles and also summarizes incorrect data from the warranty and equipment charts shown. PAGE FOUR (a) HCPD are totally incorrect in their assertion that WHCS has omitted the fifth year cost for the lease vehicles. Close perusal by their mathematical staff who state this would show the following. YEAR ONE: We show half the fleet still subsidized and half leased. to reflect a total of $ 2, 118, 697.38. YEAR TWO: The half fleet subsidized is replaced by the balance of the marked fleet and therefore the annual payment is $ 2, 045, 090. 76 as shown in the lease/purchase agreement from Ford Motor Credit Company. YEAR THREE TO FIVE: Annual Payment of $ 2, 045, 090. 76 for lease/purchase. TOTAL PAYMENT FOR VEHICLES-FIVE YEARS $ 10, 299, 251. 42. Clearly shown on the detailed costing sent, and included with the HCPD Report. (b) The chart under the heading subsidized vehicles in the cost comparisons is not only vague but does not include details. For example the figures for maintenance, cleaning and comprehensive collision insurance are not backed up by facts. Are we to believe that officers spend $ 40. 00 per month cleaning their vehicles.? The average car wash cost is $ 4.00, therefore this equates to 10 washes per month. Maintenance is averaged at $ 1,200.00 per year. What is the rationale for this figure and from where was it obtained. Under factors HCPD show average police fleet longevity of 2.5 years. This is not a correct figure and HCPD appear to have done very little research, if any into usage of marked police cars. Storage is not involved as WHCS has repeatedly stated their proposal is based on "TAKE HOME" vehicles. The report conveniently omits the gasoline and oil subsidy which is not a "wash" by any means. Costs listed in the fleet vehicle columns are misleading, and are not supported with facts. We understand the county would self insure both liability and collision. Storage and Overtime figures are a complete fabrication, and again are padding to support the HCPD claim of increased costs with a fleet of marked cars. ANALYSIS OF HAWAII COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT FLEET VERSUS SUBSIDIZED VEHICLES REPORT-PAGE THREE PAGE FIVE (a) Bulleted items at top of page. The officers currently pay for all maintenance and cleaning costs, therefore these figures should be factored into fleet costs and not artificially inflated but at reasonable figures with full references and also after contacting other law enforcement agencies using marked fleets. There should be no overtime since all tasks required can be carried out during normal working hours. The "Vehicle Storage" bulleted item is redundant for reasons stated in this analysis. It is incredible that any report would give as a reason the fact that under FLSA provisions employees taking home County owned vehicles should be paid overtime also officers having to be compensated for travel time, to not adopt a fleet of marked police vehicles. The statements and costing figures for "Maintenance Facilities" presume the creation of amini-bureaucracy to accomplish what could be done at a fraction of the cost contracting maintenance out as WHCS has constantly proposed. PAGE SEVEN-EIGHT-NINE (a) ADVANTAGES AS SEEN BY HCPD -WHCS REPLY-PAGE 8-HCPD REPORT > We again reiterate we are proposing "TAKE HOME^ vehicles. > AlI equipment would be in the "TAKE HOME" vehicle. > This would indicate that HCPD expect their sworn officers to abuse fleet vehicles Their statement could also be taken to indicate the officer would not abuse his or her own car and therefore would not transport violent prisoners ,drunks or pursue law breakers with the same diligence, if at all. > If police officers carry out the same duties, take the same risks why would there be such a marked difference in vehicle life since it is well known that standard marked police vehicles are stronger and built for the job. > SUV'S are readily obtainable with the lease/purchase program. > The claim that the subsidized vehicles with the small blue light and very dark tinted windows are "Readily Idenliflable" is utterly ridiculous. We will not comment on the we presume to be a tongue in cheek comment that WHCS should educate the public and the visitor industry, as regards the identification of police vehicles since this should not be necessary. Other supposed advantages are equally applicable to a fleet of standard marked police vehicles as they are to subsidized vehicles. ANALYSIS OF HAWAiI COUNTY POLICE DEPARTMENT FLEET VERSUS SUBSIDIZED VEHICLES REPORT-PAGE FOUR The tables provided in the attachment are not valid since they are based on a life expectancy of 2.5 years for a fleet vehicle which certainly all vehicle manufacturer would dispute as would many law enforcement agencies using the same vehicles. The fact that HCPD would use this figure indicates the approach taken to the concept of moving to a fleet of standard marked police vehicles is given no credence. We are surprised that such a lack of professionalism is indicated in their report, and believe the report lacks any credibility whatsover when one takes into account the many reasons and inaccurate figures used to show why subsidized vehicles should be retained. Such studies should be done by professionals who carry out full and proper research before stating facts which can easily be refuted. Are we to believe that law enforcement agencies in 51 states and three counties in Hawaii are not using the subsidized vehicle program because of "Tradition" and have never thought this could be far less costly, with better, "VISIBILITY" and PUBLIC SAFETY"? Are they all so incompetent as to not have studied a possible large reduction in costs and benefits as HCPD claims? To be valid any such report as consultants will tell you needs the preparers) to "Do their Homework". We submit this has not been done by HCPD and we sincerely trust the legislative auditor will ensure that accurate figures that can be verified, will be used for the awaited report to the Council. The HCPD report in our opinion and that of others is completely self-serving and has been prepared by the HCPD strongly backed by SHOPO, the police union, to ensure those making any decision with regard to this matter are blind sided by other than the facts. Whomever is responsible for making the final decision should read and study any report fully and not give same a cursory glance. Yes, this is time-consuming but the time must be taken to ferret out the correct facts. Finally we have been told and in some cases warned that we are trying to change a tradition and system that has been in effect for many years. We are well aware of that but will not give up the need for VISIBILITY and PUBLIC SAFETY, which are a major requirement of society, especially in a tourist oriented environment. A an J. Pratt., hBA. President-West Hawaii Crime Stoppers for Board of llirectors